Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Appendix Materials Figures A-2—A30. Figure A-2: Potential Focus Groups Cabinet Campus Technology Council Chancellor’s Cabinet 2 Chief Administrators Officers.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Appendix Materials Figures A-2—A30. Figure A-2: Potential Focus Groups Cabinet Campus Technology Council Chancellor’s Cabinet 2 Chief Administrators Officers."— Presentation transcript:

1 Appendix Materials Figures A-2—A30

2 Figure A-2: Potential Focus Groups Cabinet Campus Technology Council Chancellor’s Cabinet 2 Chief Administrators Officers Data Stewardship Council Council of Deans Lead Policy Analysts Group Student Systems 2012 IDMG Task Force and Advisory Group (Dec 12) Academic Senate(?) Campus Development Officers (?) Facilities Leaders (?) Project plan assumes we will conduct 5 to 10 focus groups

3 Figure A-3: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Existence of Data You Need As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff funding patterns 54% Office of Student Research Survey Databases 82% STAFF: Hiring policy/practice 54% Student Data Warehouse (Pilot) 82% STAFF: Staff benefits/welfare iss. 53% Payroll (PPS) 75% STAFF: Compensation 52% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS) 72% UGRAD: Enrollment/course load plan. 52% Facilities Database System (FDX) 48% STAFF: Staffing needs/FTE allocation 51% By Job Type Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff development (mentor.) 51% College/school-level administ. (e.g., Associate Dean) 100% STAFF: Staff satisfaction/climate 50% Policy analyst 95% UGRAD: GPA, Advancement, retention, and graduation 49% Systems programmer 82% FAC: Faculty satisfaction/climate 49% Institutional researcher/analyst 82% STAFF: Staff workload/product./eval. 48% Staff member who supports non- acad. department decision maker 73% STAFF: Staff succession policy/plan. 46% Campus-level decision maker 48% OTHPOP: Extension 43% Non-academic depar. director 48% Other academic department directors (e.g., ORU Director) 29% Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10).

4 Figure A-4: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Established Procedures for Requesting Access to Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant diff. only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq FINANC: Funding patterns/trends 51% Berk. Integr. Budg. and Staff. Syst. (BIBS) 66% 500 FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 50% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS)52% FINANC: Budget proj./expend. anal. 50% Travel & Entert. Reimbursem.49% FINANC: Budget/fin. pol./develop. 49% Human Res. Man. Sys. (HRMS)48% UGRAD: GPA, Advan., retent., grad. 28% Berk. Financial System (BFS)47% UGRAD: Enrollment/course plan. 27% Cal Profiles 46% OTHPOP: Visitors/Affiliates 27% BAIRS46% GRAD: Admission planning/policy 27% Student Information Systems27% UGRAD: Admission planning/policy 26% Off. of Stud. Research Datab.18% UGRAD: Course content/dev./eval. 24% Financial Aid (SAMS)11% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productivity 23% Course File (Academic Senate)0% UGRAD: Undergrad. learn. outcom. 22% By Job Type Tot NChisq FAC: Faculty support/mentoring21% Campus-level decision maker57% OTHPOP: Extension19% Staff who supp. campus-level decis. maker 49% GRAD: Course content/dev./eval.18% Staff who supp. acad. depart. decision maker 27%

5 Figure A-5: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Willingness of Other Units to Grant Data Access As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq UGRAD: Student profiles 44% Admissions Database84% FAC: Hiring policy/practice 40% Berk. Integr. Budg. and Staff. Syst. (BIBS) 73% GRAD: Course content/dev./eval. 36% Campus Alumni Development System (CADS) 69% FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 33% Cal Profiles64% COURSE: Course offerings/profiles 32% UG Admissions (UGA) (var. syst.)25% COURSE: Approv./modific. of courses 32% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI) 24% OTHPOP: Extension 30% By Job Type Tot NChisq ACAD: Non-fac. acad. devel./mentor. 25% Staff who supp. acad. depart. decision maker44% Systems manager41%

6 Figure A-6: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Timeliness of Cross-Unit Response to Data Requests As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant diff. only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq SPACE: Parking/Transportat. Needs 73% Berk. Integr. Budg. and Staff. Syst. (BIBS) 80% 460 GRAD: Grad. st. placement upon grad. 71% Physical Plant (SPAN)73% FINANC: Costing st./rate develop. 64% Visiting Scholars/Postdocs (VSPA)71% STAFF: Compensation 61% Payroll (PPS)61% FINANC: Funding patterns/trends 61% Berk. Financial System (BFS)55% FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 60% UG Admissions (UGA) (var. syst.) 13% SPACE: Facilities plan./dev./renov. 60% By Job Type Tot NChisq FINANC: Budget proj./expend. anal. 57% Staff who supp. non-acad. depart. decis. maker 57% UGRAD: Enrollment/course load plan. 34% Systems manager27% COURSE: Course offerings/profiles 28% COURSE: Approv./modific. of courses 13%

7 Figure A-7: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Release of Up-to-Date Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Sub-Decision (continued) Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff development/mentor. 42% FAC: Faculty satisfac./climate 27% STAFF: Staff succession pol./plan. 41% COURSE: Course offerings/profiles 25% UGRAD: Student profiles/characteris. 41% COURSE: Approv./mod. of courses 24% STAFF: Staff workld./product./eval. 41% GRAD: Course content/dev./eval. 21% UGRAD: GPA, Advan., retent., grad. 40% By Data Access Tot NChisq UGRAD: Undergrad. satisfact./climate 40% Berk. Int. Budg. & Staff. Sys. (BIBS) 78% 510 STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 40% Payroll (PPS) 69% FAC: Faculty Compensation 39% Cashiers Deposit System (CDS) 69% FAC: Fac. teach., resrch., work. 39% Travel & Entertain. Reimbursement 65% GRAD: Admission planning/policy 38% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS) 62% FAC: Faculty renewal policy/plan. 36% Human Res. Manag. Sys. (HRMS) 61% FAC: Hiring policy/practice 34% Berk. Financial System (BFS) 61% UGRAD: Enrollment/course load plan. 34% Cal Profiles 59% FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 31% BAIRS 57% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. devel./mentor. 31% Course File (Academic Senate) 18% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productivity 30% Library Systems 17% UGRAD: Admission planning/policy 30% Univ. Relat. Warehouse (in devel.) 0% FAC: Faculty productivity 30% By Job Type Tot NChisq RESRCH: Resear. compliance review 29% General analyst 65% RESRCH: Proposal activity and trends 29% Coll./school-level lead. (e.g., Dean) 14%

8 Figure A-8: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Availability of Data When You Need It As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq STAFF: Staffing needs/FTE allocat. 42% Off. of Stud. Research Surveys 91% STAFF: Staff benefits/welfare iss. 42% Admissions Database72% STAFF: Staff workld./product./eval. 42% Graduate Stud. Informat. Sys.71% STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 41% Cal Profiles62% GRAD: Financial aid/fellowship supp. 40% By Job Type FAC: Faculty Compensation 40% No significant differences STAFF: Staff funding patterns 40% STAFF: Compensation 38% STAFF: Hiring policy/practice 37% STAFF: Staff development/mentor. 34% FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 33% RESRCH: Research compliance review 32% STAFF: Staff succession pol./plan. 31% GRAD: Course content/dev./evaluat.30% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. devel./mentor.29%

9 Figure A-9: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Ease of Extracting/Accessing Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Sub-Decision (continued) Tot NChisq FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 55% OTHPOP: Extension21% STAFF: Staff workld./product./eval. 34% ALUM: Giving profiles20% STAFF: Staff succession pol./plan. 34% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. devel./ment.18% STAFF: Staff benefits/welfare iss. 33% ALUM: Biographical profiles17% UGRAD: Student profiles/characteris. 32% GRAD: Course content/dev./evalu.15% SPACE: Space allocation 31% COURSE: Course offerings/profiles14% UGRAD: Course content/dev./evaluat. 30% ALUM: Relationships & affiliations14% FAC: Faculty funding patterns 30% ALUM: Volunteer history8% STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 29% By Data Access Tot NChisq UGRAD: Enrollment/course load plan. 28% Berk. Integ. Bud. & Staff. Sy. (BIBS)62% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. satisf./clim. 27% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS)61% RESRCH: Research compliance review 27% Campus Alumni Developmen System (CADS) 32% FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 27% BearFacts31% ALUM: Prospect. donor activ./wealth 26% Student Information Systems28% ACAD: Teaching, research, workload 23% By Job Type Tot NChisq ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productivity 23% Staff who supp. campus-level decis. maker 62% COURSE: Approv./modific. of courses 22%

10 Figure A-10: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Clear Documentation Regarding Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq SPACE: Library facilit./hold./plan. 56% Physical Plant (SPAN)60% OTHPOP: Visitors/Affiliates 47% Berk. Integr. Bud. and Staff. Sy. (BIBS)46% FINANC: Budget/fin. pol./develop. 41% Berk. Financial System (BFS)38% FINANC: Budget proj./exp. anal. 40% BAIRS35% FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 40% BearFacts14% STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 20% Collect./Accounts Rec. Sy. (CARS) 14% UGRAD: Enrollm./course load pln. 20% Class Sched. & Instruct. Rec. (CSIR)11% GRAD: Admission planning/policy 17% Graduate Stud. Information Syst.10% GRAD: Course content/dev./eval. 9% Student Data Warehouse (Pilot)7% Student Information Systems6% By Job Type Tot NChisq Staff who supp. coll./sch.-level decis. maker 41%

11 Figure A-11: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Accuracy/Quality of the Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productivity 52% Cashiers Deposit System (CDS)86% FAC: Faculty FTE allocation 50% Berk. Integ. Bud. and Staff. Sy. (BIBS)80% FAC: Faculty funding patterns 50% Payroll (PPS)79% RESRCH: Proposal activity and trends 50% Archit. CAD floor plans/rm. numb.33% FAC: Faculty satisfac./climate 48% Univ. Relat. Warehouse (in develop.)33% RESRCH: Contracts/grants policy 47% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI) 33% RESRCH: Research compliance review 45% By Job Type FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 44% No significant differences ALUM: Volunteer history 43% RESRCH: Technology licensing activity 33%

12 Figure A-12: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Consistency of Data Across the Campus As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq ALUM: Relationships & affiliations 25% Berk. Integ. Bud. and Staff. Sy. (BIBS)53% ALUM: Biographical profiles 22% Cal Profiles49% ALUM: Giving profiles 19% Off. of Stud. Research Surveys15% Student Data Warehouse (Pilot)9% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI)8% Univ. Relat. Warehouse (in devel.) 0% By Job Type Tot NChisq Data recorder73% Staff who supp. acad. depart. decision maker 61% Staff who supp. other acad. depart. decis. mak. 61%

13 Figure A-13: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Consistency of Data Fields Across Systems As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 16% BearFacts15% FAC: Faculty FTE allocation 11% Class Sched. & Instruct. Rec. (CSIR) 5% FAC: Faculty satisfac./climate 10% Course File (Academic Senate)0% OTHPOP: Extension 0% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI)0% By Job Type Tot NChisq Systems manager12% Policy analyst6%

14 Figure A-14: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Access to Standardized Data Reports As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Sub-Decision (continued) Tot NChisq OTHPOP: Outreach 67% UGRAD: GPA, Advan., retent., & grad.22% SPACE: Eval. of client services 63% UGRAD: Advising21% RESRCH: Contracts/grants policy 62% GRAD: Student profiles/characteris.18% RESRCH: Proposal activi. & trends 62% By Data Access Tot NChisq FINANC: Budget proj./expen. anal. 55% Library Systems83% FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 54% Physical Plant (SPAN)67% STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 36% Berk. Integ. Bud. & Staff. Syst. (BIBS)64% GRAD: Financ. aid/fellowsh. sup. 33% Cashiers Deposit System (CDS)63% FAC: Faculty satisfac./climate 31% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS)59% GRAD: Grad. stud. satisf./climate 28% Berk. Equipm. Track. Syst. (BETS)58% UGRAD: Undergrd. learn. outcom. 28% Travel & Entertainment Reimbursem.58% FAC: Faculty productivity 27% Berk. Financial System (BFS)55% UGRAD: Undergrad. satisfac./clim. 26% BAIRS50% GRAD: Advan., retent., graduation 26% Student Information Systems30% COURSE: Course offerings/profile 25% BearFacts29% GRAD: Admission planning/policy 25% Graduate Stud. Information Syst.27% UGRAD: Admission planning/pol. 24% Class Sched. & Instruct. Rec. (CSIR)24% UGRAD: Enrollm./course ld. plan.24% Course File (Academic Senate)9% UGRAD: Student profiles/characte.24% By Job Type Staff who supp. campus-level decis. maker 54%

15 Figure A-15: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Access to Specialized Reports As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq FINANC: Budget proj./expend. anal. 40% Physical Plant (SPAN)54% FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 38% Berk. Financial System (BFS)40% UGRAD: Undergrad. satisfact./climate 17% Cal Profiles26% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productivity 17% BearFacts20% FAC: Fac. teach., resrch., work. 17% Facilities Database Syst. (FDX)16% UGRAD: Student profiles/characteris. 16% Student Information Systems 12% UGRAD: Enrollment/course load plan. 15% Class Schd. & Instr. Rec. (CSIR)9% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. advan./retent. 15% Univ. Relat. Warehouse (in dev.)0% UGRAD: Undergraduate learning outcom. 14% Course File (Academic Senate)0% UGRAD: Advising 13% By Job Type Tot NChisq UGRAD: Admission planning/policy 10% Staff who supp. campus-level decis. maker 44% FAC: Faculty productivity 9% UGRAD: GPA, Advan., retent., and grad. 9% UGRAD: Undergr. placem. upon grad.8%

16 Figure A-16: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Access to Trained Staff As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 33% Cal Profiles50% OTHPOP: Extension 20% Facilities Database System (FDX)20% RESRCH: Technology licensing activity 13% By Job Type Tot NChisq Member of the Chancellor's Cabinet 64%

17 Figure A-17: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Access to User Friendly Reporting Tools As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq SPACE: Eval. of client services 50% Berk. Integr. Budg. & Staff. Syst. (BIBS) 45% FINANC: Budget proj./exp. anal. 40% Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS) 45% FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 38% BearFacts 19% UGRAD: Undergrad. satisf./clim. 18% Academic Personnel Data 14% FAC: Faculty support/mentoring 17% Facilities Database System (FDX) 12% UGRAD: Enrollm./course ld. plan. 17% By Job Type Tot NChisq UGRAD: GPA, Advan., retent., grad. 16% Institutional researcher/analyst 56% OTHPOP: Extension 7% Policy analyst 48% RESRCH: Technology licensing activity 0% Staff who supp. coll./sch.-level decis. maker 46% Staff who supp. campus-level decis. maker 45% Campus-level decision maker 14%

18 Figure A-18: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Access to Analytical Tools to Help with Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq FINANC: Budget develop./allocat. 18% Off. of Stud. Research Surveys 64% STAFF: Staff funding patterns 14% Off. of Stud. Research Databases 57% FINANC: Costing st./rate develop. 14% Student Data Warehouse (Pilot) 45% STAFF: Staff workld./product./evl. 13% Berk. Financial System (BFS) 19% SPACE: Space allocation 13% Travel & Entertainment Reimbursement 16% STAFF: Staff benefits/welfare iss. 11% BearFacts9% ALUM: Biographical profiles 6% Facilities Database System (FDX) 5% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. productiv. 6% Berk. Equipm. Track. Syst. (BETS) 4% ACAD: Non-fac. acad. satisf./clim. 6% By Job Type Tot NChisq Institutional researcher/analyst 72% 180 Systems programmer 60% Policy analyst 50% Staff who supp. non-acad. depart. decis. maker 35% Campus-level decision maker 6%

19 Figure A-19: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Procedures to Protect Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq ALUM: Giving profiles 89% Financial Aid (SAMS)90% UGRAD: Advising 85% Student Information Systems81% ALUM: Biographical profiles 85% Human Resource Manag. Sys. (HRMS) 59% ALUM: Prospect. donor activ./wealth 85% Travel & Entertainment Reimbursement 54% GRAD: Advan., retent., graduation 81% Cashiers Deposit System (CDS)52% GRAD: Grad. stud. satisf./climate 78% Berk. Equipm. Track. Syst. (BETS) 51% STAFF: Hiring policy/practice 57% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI)42% STAFF: Staff satisfact./climate 55% By Job Type Tot NChisq STAFF: Staff workld./product./eval. 55% Policy analyst47% STAFF: Compensation 54% SPACE: Eval. of client services 48%

20 Figure A-20: Mapping the UCB Data Landscape: % Evaluating Procedures to Ensure Sharing of Data As Excellent/Good vs. Fair/Poor (significant differences only, p<.10) Red Shading=Significantly lower eval. based on chi-sq. (p<.05; light red=p<.10). Green Shading=Sign. higher eval. based on chi-square (p<.05; light green=p<.10). By Sub-Decision Types Tot NChisq By Data Access Tot NChisq ALUM: Giving profiles 79% Admissions Database74% SPACE: Library facilit./hold./plan. 78% Travel & Entertainment Reimbursement 38% ALUM: Prospect. donor activ./wealth 75% Student Data Warehouse (Pilot)23% SPACE: Eval. of client services 71% Facil. and Spat. Data Integ. (FASDI) 18% UGRAD: Financial aid/fellowship supp. 68% By Job Type Tot NChisq RESRCH: Proposal activity and trends 68% College/school-level leader (e.g., Dean) 100% Campus-level decision maker21% Member of the Chancellor's Cabinet 11%

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29 Figure A-29: Principal Component Analysis, Factor Analysis*: Access to Campus- Wide Data Systems among All IDMG Respondents (factors 1- 5) Factor 1 Factor 3 BAIRS 0.73 Admissions Database0.55 Berkeley Information Sys. (BIS)0.61 BearFacts0.58 Human Resource Management Sys. (HRMS)0.63 Departmental Student Award Sys.0.55 Berkeley Equipment & Tracking Sys. (BETS)0.53 Graduate Student Information Sys.0.74 Berkeley Financial Sys. (BFS)0.82Collection and Accounts Receivable Sys. (CARS)0.55 Berkeley Integ. Budget and Staff. Sys. (BIBS)0.71 Variance Explained: 2.49 Cashiers Deposit Sys. (CDS)0.63 Payroll (PPS)0.64Factor 4 Travel & Entertainment Reimbursement0.71Project Information Sys. Management (PRISM)0.87 Variance Explained: 4.79 Architectural CAD floor plans & room numbers0.89 Variance Explained: 1.96 Factor 2 Student Athletes (various Sys.)0.51Factor 5 Office of Student Research Database Sys.0.79Physical Plant (SPAN)0.58 Office of Student Res. Survey Databases0.87Facilities and Spatial Data Integration (FASDI)0.54 Student Data Warehouse (Pilot)0.75Facilities Database Sys. (FDX)0.55 Variance Explained: 2.51 Educational Technology Room Inventory0.59 Variance Explained: 1.67 *Using varimax rotation, Eigen value criterion for retention of factors, and displaying correlation values over.50 only.

30 Figure A-30: Principal Component Analysis, Factor Analysis*: Access to Campus- Wide Data Systems among All IDMG Respondents (factors 6-13) *Using varimax rotation, Eigen value criterion for retention of factors, and displaying correlation values over.50 only. Factor 6Factor 10 Class Schedule and Instruct. Rec. (CSIR)0.66Financial Aid (SAMS)0.63 Course File (Academic Senate)0.77UG Admissions (UGA) (var. sub sys.)0.81 Variance Explained: 1.60Variance Explained: 1.49 Factor 7Factor 11 Cal Profiles0.54Campus Alumni Develop. Sys. (CADS)0.75 Planning and Analysis Databases0.64University Relations Warehouse (in devel.)0.72 Variance Explained: 1.57 Variance Explained: 1.39 Factor 8Factor 12 Academic Personnel Data0.80UNEX Student Sys.0.80 Visiting Scholars and Post Doct. Aff. (VSPA)0.60 Variance Explained: 1.39 Variance Explained: 1.54 Factor 13 Factor 9Library Sys.0.86 Extramural Funds Accounting (EFA)0.76 Variance Explained: 1.32 COEUS Variance Explained: 1.53


Download ppt "Appendix Materials Figures A-2—A30. Figure A-2: Potential Focus Groups Cabinet Campus Technology Council Chancellor’s Cabinet 2 Chief Administrators Officers."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google